What do

Because Capitalism has actually worked multiple times and Communism has not been achieved even once.
You miss the point when people tell you why they don't follow your ideology. It's not that they think that Communism wouldn't be a fine thing, it's because it doesn't work in reality. This has been shown multiple times, whenever some country decides to walk the road to Communism, they end up in a horrible dictatorship instead.
Imagine you have a map that says there is a road that leads to sugar candy mountain. But from the few that have walked down it, you keep hearing that it leads you into a swamp full of crocodiles with AIDS. Still, people don't heed the warnings and keep falling into the AIDS swamp, even though they wanted to go somewhere else. But when people decide to stay in the shitty city they live in instead of walking down a road that will most certainly kill them, even though the thing described on the map sounds nice, you don't get it.

Europe works, America works, the USSR didn't.Capitalism produces unjust, inherently unstable systems that make the people inside unhappy but your preferred ideology produces meatgrinders that make the few people that get out of them super happy they get to live in a capitalist society now because anything is better than that shit.

Yes, it wasn't true Socialism but of course it wasn't, your map is wrong and won't lead you where you want to go no matter how many times you walk down that road. Tough luck.

what does this even mean? worked at what? instituting exploitation and wage slavery? completely empty statement

Capitalism is not really a separate, competing ideologically planned system, despite it having to be engineered in the past out of the old, it's firmly simply synonymous with "the economy" now. It makes little sense to talk about the crimes of capitalism as if it were a simple ideological competitor these days.

It produces mass ideology, sure, but it has enough flexibility to allow competitors to emerge within it, such as Communism.

Communism was a conscious attempt to combat the rigid ideology generated by the new wealthy ruling class in the 19th C., by making its own one up out of whole cloth, adopting amoralism, and assumed by adopting it, its revolutionary vanguard parties via some kind of presumptive purity oath or other obscure mechanism would be immune from immediate hostile takeover by psychopathic opportunists, as soon as they took over all power by gutting all opposition - for which they had to be inherently militarized.

This basic psychological understanding simply wasn't there at the time, and they made flawed assumptions about ideology being more radically constitutive than it is - more like reflexive / defensive. The ideology they created in fact is riddled with error and contradiction, as in believing in "human condition" but not "human nature".

How do you stop such individuals from taking over the entire Plan as an extension of their personality? The way most see it is, you'll always get a Stalin, a Pol Pot, a Kim, a Mao. And most people see your historical revision and apologetics for their atrocities, as simply horrific, and so they reject you as anti-human monsters.

very interesting. can you answer my question now?

I did, by showing your question to be flawed in its basis. It's a categorical mistake to compare them as you do. Communism is a failed reaction against the economy, and always collapses back into normalized economics, except with an extra-tyrannical elite often still firmly embedded.

what did capitalism work at?

It is also made clear that the understanding of "exploitation" in Marxism is not moralistic, but has a specific technical meaning. That is, surplus value. I always see Communists who know this equivocate it into the moralistic sense in the propaganda, while they are really amoral to their core.

People inherently reject being wage slaves, but they also inherently reject Communism.

For one thing, producing generally more progressive, tolerant citizenry.

Compare the masses' attitudes in ex-Communist states to the epicentres of global capital. I never see this radical failure of indoctrination explained.

Pure ignorance, you clearly have no idea how the world works if you're not aware that both capitalism and communism are responsible for every single evil on this planet for the past two centuries. Governments preaching support for capitalism have, in fact, killed people. You can write another nonsensical paragraph for us if you want but none of your mental gymnastics will make you any less wrong.

...

i know what exploitation means in the economic context. i haven't made any moralistic statements or value judgements. keep deflecting

what do "progressive" and "tolerant" mean?

how about communalism and market socialism.

Their ideological defense is a facade. The elite are psychopathic by their nature, and will use any excuse, and will shift when ever it suits them. They are not true believers.

So you are only asserting capitalism has failed in the sense that it has collapsed? It's always the other way around. Despite its crises, the economy keeps on keeping on.

Societal values of respect for women, homosexuals, transexuals, other races, religions, ethnicities. Ironically the Cheka who really ruled these countries, managed to help the civil rights and other movements in capitalist countries, in hope to destabilize them, while despite total brainwashing of its own citizens, achieved very little.

And as opposed to what? Feudalist monarchical mercantilism, or a hypothetical system that works in your mind?

i asked what did capitalism work at. your response was some fluffy notion of a "more progressive and tolerant citizenry." was that what capitalism was aiming for and working at?

Your question itself is unanswerable, capitalism is not an ideological alternative planned system, even if it was in the 19th century. It is simply the background of economic activity and it can come in many forms per country, it produces ideology systematically rather than it being a product of ideologues. The absolute collapse of all alternatives working from the supposition that capitalism is merely one ideology among many has demonstrated this.

Capitalism has been of life support for the last hundred years, cut it off and it will die on its own.

...

What life support? There is nothing outside of capitalism, merely antagonistic revolutions within it that ultimately reproduce it, often in a merely more brutal form.

Recurrent crisis is not failure. The world is currently fully functioning and operational.

rofl. your sophistry is pathetic

It WAS planned initially, as they had to pave the way for it. Now it is of a fundamentally different character, something Marx himself understood.

[african child starving in the background]

Keynes.

I didn't say it wasn't brutal and needed to be overcome, and again I see the moralistic equivocation here. Just that it is currently not facing any real threat, outside of futuristic speculation.

...

did you forget your LeftCom flag?

*didn't need to be overcome

I'm anti-leftism.

yet you claim Socialist Revolutions lead to Capitalism?

lol, haven't they?

illustrating that your economic order either fails to address starvation, or intentionally fosters it, has nothing to do with "moralistic equivocation"

Reactionary forces acting on those revolutions did.

It's not "my" economic order, it's THE economic order.

I find Communists tend to switch effortlessly between moralist agit-prop and amoralistic analysis of contradictions tending to collapse.

it's true lol

Ah yes, the metaphysical "reactionary forces", that somehow kept reemerging, after they'd all been liquidated, exiled, society totally closed down to external influence (CIA infiltration of USSR was not even close to comparable to KGB infiltration the other way, sorry), and re-education drilled into the minds of everyone by an omnipresent state from cradle to grave.

The persistent dictatorship of the bourgeoisie somehow never lost its grip. How many more decades would it take?

yes, and people like me want to get rid of it. any more truisms you'd like to mention?
so? should we aim for pure moralism or amoralism? human beings are not robots and purity is not their strong suit

Well I'm saying Communists tend to act a little … sociopathic… for most people's taste. It's manipulative. You claim superior understanding, act like it.

as opposed to benevolence and philanthropy of capitalists, i take it.

Well that's the thing, it will always be rejected by the mass of the populace you claim to be the vanguard representative of.

It's fundamentally inconsistent.

You also tend to equivocate effortlessly between definitions of capitalist for example. I think the rich's philanthropy is largely a sham. Even if they mean well their perspective is so distorted by their extreme position relative to everyone else they cannot help but to be warped by it, and detatched from the people.

Just like any "socialist" party elite or client-patron nomenklatura.

Holla Forums's posters fell in quality a lot in recent months, it's a shame, you and Marxposter would have a rad time toguether.

so we should just abandon it and accept the tyranny, oppression, exploitation and slavery of capitalism?

If we hope to supersede the current brutal monstrosity of the current economic order, and its various possible end games that are disasterous for humanity, we need to be more radical than all the dated and totally incoherent prescriptions of "the left" - all its sects are in inherent and often diametrically opposed conflict.

I believe leftism emerges as a reactionary product of the system, just as the "the right" do, and overt ideology is secondary, a thin layer of camoflage. The movements of the past have little bearing on the inescapably revolutionary future.

No, but nor should we fall for the tyranny, oppression, exploitation and slavery of "socialism"s mythological alternatives.

they all collapsed pretty much at the same time though.

ok? so you advocate an entirely new concept. that's fine

...

gee who knows

Rather ironic picture to be using for that post.

pretty much. also counter-revolutionary forces got inspiration from their success in other regions.
Thank god Deng stopped them.

I'd ask him what he meant by "communism" and if he answered "de gubbermand owning everything xD" I'd call him an idiot and move on.

Also,
That site is pure, unadulterated cancer.

yeah i think the unironic self-identified "the left" is part of the problem, it's a product of the endless subdivision that keeps us talking orthogonally past eachother instead of finding true unities that will enable us to surpass this paradox. It's not a matter of finding the correct ideological prescription then arguing dogmatically from that position, because our meanings, our words, are also poisoned by the system. We need to do something about how ideology is systematically manufactured first, authentic ideology will come later.

The working class is often quite conservative, but anti-liberal, as liberals tend to have no principles, when at least real conservatives, in many cases, do. Learn to tolerate their views for a start, as part of your class, if you indeed belong to the working class, rather than seeing them as weeds that need to be pulled out or simply identical to bourgeois cosmopolitan libs?

How about no.

Their views aren't correct for being a prole's views, that's nonsense. If your argument is that left should manipulate the working class's spooks for their own ends I entirely agree, after all, that's all the right ever fucking had.
Now if you believe the working class's "conservative" views are of any use for the goals and methods of a leftist organization then you're making a poor attempt at bating us into your 3rdpositionism and it won't work.

Exactly. Your frame is so limited. You see these people as simply "the reaction".

All people are is a grid of shifting boxes to you people, to either align with strategically while playing them until your sect wins, or to liquidate as soon as identified. Where's the humanity?

Nice frank admission of manipulativeness and elitist condescension, rather than class solidarity. You're alien to the working class and you know it.

This is such a beautiful post haha, and so perfectly illustrative of my point about "leftism". Thank you, even if you're a larper. Nail on the head.

You act as if we've never heard of reactionary ideology before.

We have. All the time. Down our throats. It's useless slave ideology. Reaction is not our ally and they have nothing to contribute. They are simply an obstacle.

Take your tepid, centrist liberalism somewhere else.

It's not centrist liberalism, nor is it "turd positionist". I'm simply here to show you how you're mistaken. You are a fetishist and a dogmatist. You believe in a mythic transcendent "we", but angrily foster categorical disunity.

fuck it's annoying how you word swap anything that's not the hive """consensus""" here haha holy shit.

my eyes have been opened

thanks for this anti-working class propaganda, le left

not everything the working class does is inherently good, especially since a lot of it has ended up not helping them
am i sympathetic to people who have been given no answer from the left in america and reactionary bullshit from the right? no doubt, but the solution isn't to support their beliefs it is to challenge them and hopefully change their minds

the left has given them no answers because they have no answers, and gave up talking to them at all, except to smugly assert they are the victims of mass brainwashing, while spouting bizarre jargon like a robot.

The problem here is that what you're advocating is the lowest form of populism.

No, you're peddling out this stupid postmodern liberal bullshit about everyone's opinion being more or less equivalent and we should give stupid, uneducated opinions far more weight than they deserve because of some stupid "wisdom of the crowds" bullshit.

The funny part is that it isn't even wisdom of the crowds. The crowd get their "wisdom" from the various propaganda outlets of the ruling class.

When I said "we", I was simply referring to myself and people with similar political positions.

Do you not see the fundamental tension between your amoral relativism, class solidarity ideas, and your open disdain for the feeble-minded proletariat for their moral failings, and inferior views?

But Leftism is a propaganda outlet of the ruling class, specifically the soft power of liberal civil society. Does social revolution comes from below, or is it the enlightened bureaucracy installing themselves to "rationalize" a system they simply dislike?

There is no "we", leftists don't even agree on anything. You make all kinds of assumptions about my political standpoint that aren't even evident. You have already exposed your narrow, categorical dogma about how people in society fit together.

If anything, the left has too many answers.
STUPID AND PROUD

We don't have disdain for the proletariat. We have disdain for reactionaries. You claimed that the proletariat are basically the same as reactionaries, something you've yet to prove.

Reactionaries are not our comrades and never will be our comrades. We simply refuse to believe that the working class is inherently, immutably reactionary.

they have no moral failings, they're doing whatever they think will give them the best chance of surviving
i respect the proletariat a lot, i give zero fucks for reactionary thought and i will shoot it down every chance i get whether it be liberal 'identity informs class we need a diverse ruling class to fix society' or your fucking bullshit

We're not liberals, idiot.

There's actually quite a lot we agree on.

You've simply defined away the problem. Anyone who disagrees is a stupid reactionary, anyone who agrees is an enlightened comrade. You're just shifting boxes around.

And yes, leftists spout jargon all the time. They are for the "below them" but require an advanced diploma to even "understand" their heavily obscurantist ravings, and consider anyone who rejects these to be stupid.

Notice I haven't rejected Marx as he had some great ideas. It gets a bit ridiculous after there though.

lel, well I see plenty of articles on Jacobin that have argued absolutely against your kind of elitism. That the revolution will be manufactured by a competing elite propaganda machine consisting of the "educated".

You don't think you are liberals, but you are a product of either:
1. Continual purges leaving nothing but sycophants in a Communist country
2. Bourgeois liberal society.

Like what, precisely?

If you had spent anything longer than two minutes on this board you would know that this is categorically false.

Social liberalism is propaganda outlet of the ruling class.

Class consciousness is not something the ruling class have any desire to promote so I have no idea why you think leftists who support that cause would be their puppets.

(pic very much related)

His analysis of capitalism, though flawed, was genius. Also his advancement of Hegel to understand the systematic manufacture of ideology creating inherent contradictions in society. He just hadn't seen what a Communist society looked like yet. The problem with "the left" is you don't see yourselves as riddled with contradictions, as if your universities were somehow separate and isolated little hypobaric chambers.

I don't disagree that idpol is currently mainly liberal/ neoliberal propaganda, but I think the broader left suffers from similar issues - utter incoherence and inability for self-reflection.

The fuck are these posts? I never even implied that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

We have theory. Some of this theory is simplified enough for the average layman to understand, but we refuse to compromise this theory for the sake of demagogic populism. It is you who are being an elitist by suggesting that the general populace can only understand the most base forms of demagoguery.

In addition, being a product of liberal society doesn't make you a liberal. In fact, the socialist left is largely a product of liberalism, it is the reaction to the failings of liberalism.

Well I agree that Leftism is inherently reactionary, but we disagree on the extent it reproduces the contradictions of liberalism.

Turning the accusation of elitism back on me won't work, we've all seen your posts.

Stop it with the post-left diarrhea and get to the point. Why are people having different ideas about how to achieve socialism and what socialism might look like a bad thing? Why is it so important that we include reactionary ideology?

Not in that way. Dialectics, my dude. History is a constant process, everything is a product of and a reaction to everything else. For there to be a critique of the flaws of liberal capitalism, embodied in the left, liberal capitalism needed to exist first. That doesn't make it liberalism itself, any more than liberal capitalism is feudalism.

I'm trying to illustrate how your mode of analysis, your categorical view of the world, is flawed. You are filtering everything through a lens, seeing all opponents as "reactionary".

I unlike you, do not propose to know what the solution is. But I do know showing le intellectuals to be wrong is part of it.

I agree, my opposition to leftism is dialectical, obviously.

So you're just a contrarian post-left idiot with no ideas.

Get out of here, fam.

Anyway it's been real. gtg 4 now. I'll be back to shred on another thread, unless banned ;)

Have fun on reddit.

Your labels are infantile. Social progress will come when your kind are embarrassed at your own game again and again. Happy to oblige.

That's what you are. You're going through a fairly typical post-left phase, the lack of any real ideas that offer an alternative to the left included.

I'll just offer one final word on this kind of thinking. You really belie an emotional need to put people into firm categories of expected behaviors when you simply fail to understand them, and thereafter make no effort to do so. And that is going to be your downfall

Does it trigger you to know that you're not the first special snowflake to have come across your particular set of beliefs to the extent that its already been named and categorized?

Do post-left fags just like hearing themselves spout vague bullshit?

This TBH.

yes, that's all they do. And yet there's never any solutions

fucking M-L and other nostalgia socialists piss me so much!

ur a fucking retard kid

Even the attempts to reach true communism was a huge success comparatively, imagine how great the world would be when we finally reach FALC.

I love that image. It just proves that the elites only use idpol as a shield or red herring to distract from the real issues, themselves. This is why the elites ruthlessly pursue and promote idpol. Every last capitalist government and corporation.

...

What the heck is "post-left" and why should I care? Is that like the shit that runs the only semi-successful leftist experiment in existence in the past 100 years, Rojava?

And this is hilarious, because I don't see the left offering ANY solutions.

Last I checked you were getting blindsided by the far right, babbling incoherently in response. I'm trying to wake you up to STOP that from happening. You frankly deserve fascism if you are comfortable being its perverse mirror.

You are absolutely destined to fail, and prefer the comfort of dogma to the truth. Solutions are worked out together, by communities, not by lone geniuses. The tenacious existence of outmoded religiously ideological blocs inhibits this process, and there's simply no time left to fuck around with large sectors of society being wasted on your garbage, just because it gives you some kind of false hope, and your pathetic life a sense of purpose. We're at the precipice now.

Damn, I'm glad I stayed to check out one last thread before bed. Haven't laughed that hard all week, fam.

how about not being a liberal

What a bunch of savages you commies are eh.

The problem is that the capitalist mode of production causes meaningless suffering and waste on a titanic scale, and that it can't really be changed through so-called democratic channels, as so-called democratic institutions presuppose private property in their very construction. Violence in this case is the only means we have to pursue our legitimate self-interests as economic actors who can survive only by selling our labour who comprise the majority of the human population.

We need 21th century socialism. Nothing more nothing less. The soviet union collapsed same time i was born and im here to pick the pieces and try to fix it.

:^)

...

Okay.

Oh, and before I forget
An insight into the mind high on Marxism.

...

You realize that the list here is using the same logic that your 100 gorillions meme numbers come from, right? They're inflated to the breaking point with shit that had nothing to do with communism.

Says the guy claiming that the Holodomor and the famine after the Great Leap Forward were intentionally engineered.

Yes, communist regimes do not have a history of murdering the political opposition. I mean, it's not like Che made a sport of shooting people in the back of the head (because he was too much of a bitch to look them in the face), right, comrade?

Yeah, not like 100+ millions of Chinese goyim starved to death due to communist policies.

I forget! True communism has never been attempted.

Never said that, but keep strawmanning, you're good at that.

If your point is that people make tired points you should stop sounding like a broken record bitch

75,000 people may very well have died in Cuba over the entire 60+ year rule of Castro. Obviously, according to these "experts", every last one was a "death by communism".

They honestly didn't. Some people may have been executed by the Cuban government, but it wasn't anything close to 75,000. Last I heard, it was something in the hundreds.

...

They didn't. Even your shitty source doesn't claim this.

Define communism.

Your "sources" claimed that the Holodomor and Great Leap Forward famine were intentionally engineered by the Soviet and Chinese governments. You posted these claims in this thread in your meme image, which was an endorsement of the claim in your part.

I never claimed the Cuban government never executed people. My claim was that the number of people executed by the Cuban government wasn't anything close to the number provided in your image.

There is also a reason why the US does not subvert nazis, because they will maintain the status quo.

Boohoo

...

Haha what, where have you been, the Nazis are a FBI front, the MSM pumps out leftist idpol whether you want to define it away as liberalism or not. White identity is a predictable reaction to you not being able to respond to radicalized idiots in your own ranks, thinking you could ride them to glorious success, while expecting white poors and Muslims to self-police.